>24 man raids

[Riversideblues]

since this is a place where you can't start a thread on an ingame problem without it getting deleted im just posing this question to other fellow players if they think that there will be many raids in eof that will require more than 24 people?discuss<div></div>

[ProphecyCT]

<DIV>Vox</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Pre-instnace Gore/Talendor/Harla Dar</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Matron</DIV>

[Aandien]

<DIV>require?  or simply provide some mechanic where its possible -- which by definition would make it easier.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If its the latter, I'm sure there will be one.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If its the former, I do not believe there is any raid now, nor will there be in EOF that *requires* it.</DIV>

[ProphecyCT]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> AncientElster wrote:<BR> <DIV>require?  or simply provide some mechanic where its possible -- which by definition would make it easier.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If its the latter, I'm sure there will be one.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If its the former, I do not believe there is any raid now, nor will there be in EOF that *requires* it.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>And why should having >24 people make a raid easier when the raid should be built for 24 people?  Is this fair for small raiding guilds that just make 24 people in raid size?  Any raids where >24 people significantly alters the difficulty should not even exist for a key idea of EQ2 was a small raid size where each raid member would be key.

[Snarks]

the beauty of eq2 is that they make it really easy to level alts to max and get end-game gear really easily so that you can replace your characters on the fly as they are rendered obsolete with a patch<div></div>

[Kyriel]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> snarkteeth wrote:<BR>the beauty of eq2 is that they make it really easy to level alts to max and get end-game gear really easily so that you can replace your characters <STRONG>on the fly</STRONG> as they are rendered obsolete with a patch<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Ohh this reminds me of me!

[Zarfto]

Please don't use this serious discussion to plug your videos. Take it to NGD if you want to de-rail threads.

[Zarfto]

<DIV>And I agree with what people in general are saying, no raid should be made easier with the inclusion of extra people, neccesary or not.</DIV>

[Mgunner]

<DIV>I would really like to see a raid that required x2 24 main raid forces. Force two different raiding guilds together to work for one common goal. That would be great to see. </DIV>

[ibeo]

<DIV>guilds working together? never!</DIV>

[vinterskugge]

<DIV>It's stupid and I can't believe SOE hasn't learnt their lesson yet.  They've made this mistake so many times and corrected it later, but seem to be incapable of just not putting it in at all.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Harla Dar:  her adds could be zerged by people out of raid.  Instanced so became impossible.</DIV> <DIV>Talendor:  Adds could be zerged by people out of raid.  Instanced so became impossible.</DIV> <DIV>Hurricanus:  Adds could be killed by people out of raid.  Adds were changed so they locked to the encounter.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You stated that raids would be balanced around a 24 man maximum.  So we balance our guilds around a 24 man raid.  Then you put stuff like this in the game.</DIV>

[ProphecyCT]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> vinterskugge wrote:<BR> <DIV>It's stupid and I can't believe SOE hasn't learnt their lesson yet.  They've made this mistake so many times and corrected it later, but seem to be incapable of just not putting it in at all.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Harla Dar:  her adds could be zerged by people out of raid.  Instanced so became impossible.</DIV> <DIV>Talendor:  Adds could be zerged by people out of raid.  Instanced so became impossible.</DIV> <DIV>Hurricanus:  Adds could be killed by people out of raid.  Adds were changed so they locked to the encounter.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>You stated that raids would be balanced around a 24 man maximum.  So we balance our guilds around a 24 man raid.  Then you put stuff like this in the game.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>/cough</P> <P>Vision of Vox</P> <P>and Kra'Thuk at one point ?</P> <P> </P> <P>By the way, has anyone tried to just yell the adds for Hurricanus so u can engage them out of raid ?</P>

[Sirlutt]

no one is forcing anyone to use more than 24 people .. guilds are <u><i><b>choosing</b></i></u> to do so.If , as i saw posted earlier, the difference between wiping time after time and completing the encounter is having >24 people involved, then i dont consider the content beaten correctly.<div></div>

[Riversideblues]

<div><blockquote><hr>vinterskugge wrote:<div> </div> <div>You stated that raids would be balanced around a 24 man maximum.  So we balance our guilds around a 24 man raid.  Then you put stuff like this in the game.</div><hr></blockquote>hence the problem....but lookout the mods might delete this thread since it's on topic but says something (oh no) bad about certain mechanics!!</div>

[Snarks]

i successfuly raided all t5 content and until now had no idea that out-of-raid groups could assist on vision of vox/krathuk/etc. so obviously it wasnt needed back then. its not really a problem with the matron to get a few people to clear adds for most guilds, but fundamentally it shouldn't make the raid any easier to have outside assistance. If they instanced mystic lake and forced 4people in the raid t oclear adds thats a different story<div></div>

[jago quicksilver]

<div></div>i would really be [Removed for Content] if they instanced Mystic lake, they already took away 3 contested mobs because of instancing.<p>Message Edited by jago quicksilver on <span class=date_text>09-15-2006</span> <span class=time_text>08:53 PM</span>

[Snarks]

well i wouldnt want that either it was just putting it into perspectiveanyways they did  'fix' mystic lake 2 so the zone doesnt 'isntance' in that regard, had about 100 people in zone today<div></div>

[Killerbee3000]

<div><blockquote><hr>snarkteeth wrote:well i wouldnt want that either it was just putting it into perspectiveanyways they did  'fix' mystic lake 2 so the zone doesnt 'isntance' in that regard, had about 100 people in zone today<div></div><hr></blockquote>the thing that it doesnt instnace isnt realy the fix anyone want to see, i bet there is a better way to fix it. and back to topic, eq2 promised fixed max number of people in raids. (once upon a time it was even that way for heroic content when encounters autolocked on you), i really like the idea of a fixed max number of people in raids, why? because unlike in other games you need to have a strategy to kill the mobs, you need resists gear, you need everyone paying attention and so on. other games work different there, you cant kill a mob you just bring more people. anyone who brings more than 24 poeple to a raid to kill stuff is a dirt cheap exploiter and should be insta banned for life time from every game. only exception to this, mobs like matron that can port you into not encounter related mobs.</div>

[KazzySoJaz]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Zarfto wrote:<BR> Please don't use this serious discussion to plug your videos. Take it to NGD if you want to de-rail threads.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>She wasn't plugging her video, is her sig...</P> <P> </P> <P>Also, back on topic, I would love to see >24 main raids only because it would allow the more casual people to raid (which seems popular in WoW) and is one of the things this game lacks (casual players in the end game)...</P>

[Pins]

<blockquote><hr>KazzySoJazzy wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Zarfto wrote:<BR> Please don't use this serious discussion to plug your videos. Take it to NGD if you want to de-rail threads.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>She wasn't plugging her video, is her sig...</P> <P> </P> <P>Also, back on topic, I would love to see >24 main raids only because it would allow the more casual people to raid (which seems popular in WoW) and is one of the things this game lacks (casual players in the end game)...</P><hr></blockquote> Guess what, this isn't WoW. This is EQ2. Guess what is going to happen in WoW in their expansion, 25-man raids, why? To let more casual players raid because 40-people is too many. Seriously, more people in a raid does not mean more casuals can raid. It means less, because it's harder to find 39 other casual players that want to do the same as you, vs. finding another 24(or 23 in our case).

[KazzySoJaz]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Pinski wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> KazzySoJazzy wrote:<BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Zarfto wrote:<BR> Please don't use this serious discussion to plug your videos. Take it to NGD if you want to de-rail threads.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>She wasn't plugging her video, is her sig...</P> <P> </P> <P>Also, back on topic, I would love to see >24 main raids only because it would allow the more casual people to raid (which seems popular in WoW) and is one of the things this game lacks (casual players in the end game)...</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Guess what, this isn't WoW. This is EQ2. Guess what is going to happen in WoW in their expansion, 25-man raids, why? To let more casual players raid because 40-people is too many. Seriously, more people in a raid does not mean more casuals can raid. It means less, because it's harder to find 39 other casual players that want to do the same as you, vs. finding another 24(or 23 in our case).<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>First, I believe I said end game raiding, that means most zones set to farm, Tarinax down etc... (imo)</P> <P>Second, I disagree, because it can be hard for some of the more casuals to get into a higher tiered raiding guilds here, as most only want 24 hardcore people, who never miss a raid, even some of the lower tiered hardcore guilds only have 30-40 in the guild just in case a few cannot make it one night, but the nights everyone logs in, they could go to a 40 main raid zone.</P> <P>I have met many players who refuse to join a raiding guild because they cannot just hit one zone a week or two a week or whatever their play times allow.  Fielding more people allows for more casual players to get in rotations, say you have 4 brigands who can only make it two times a week, while you have 4 others who can make the other nights in the week, it allows guilds to expand some and like I said allows casuals to hit the raid scene a little more, instead of only having 2 brigands in the guild who can make the raids every night of the week, while the other 6 become bored with the game because they cannot keep raid attendance up so they have to join some lower tiered guild who cannot beat vyemm.</P> <P>I also never said this was WoW, just comparing what I have experienced and what I know. </P>

[Victicu]

No, those 24 member hardcore guilds would just find another 24 hardcore members, they wouldnt let casual players come to raids. Those 50 member casual guild would just find 50 more casual players.oh, btw raids that become easier with >24 people suck.<div></div>

[Pins]

<blockquote><hr>KazzySoJazzy wrote:First, I believe I said end game raiding, that means most zones set to farm, Tarinax down etc... (imo)Second, I disagree, because it can be hard for some of the more casuals to get into a higher tiered raiding guilds here, as most only want 24 hardcore people, who never miss a raid, even some of the lower tiered hardcore guilds only have 30-40 in the guild just in case a few cannot make it one night, but the nights everyone logs in, they could go to a 40 main raid zone.I have met many players who refuse to join a raiding guild because they cannot just hit one zone a week or two a week or whatever their play times allow.  Fielding more people allows for more casual players to get in rotations, say you have 4 brigands who can only make it two times a week, while you have 4 others who can make the other nights in the week, it allows guilds to expand some and like I said allows casuals to hit the raid scene a little more, instead of only having 2 brigands in the guild who can make the raids every night of the week, while the other 6 become bored with the game because they cannot keep raid attendance up so they have to join some lower tiered guild who cannot beat vyemm.I also never said this was WoW, just comparing what I have experienced and what I know.<hr></blockquote>Why would hardcore raiders want casual raiders who aren't the same day-in day-out? I know if I was raiding content that was setup for 40-man, I'd want 45-48 people in a guild tops whever everybody is the same(basically) and everybody knows [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] they're doing. I wouldn't want casuals in my hardcore guild, because [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] gearing up people who are barely on. I want a guild that is designed around the content, not having more casual players who could suck because they don't play, not to mention have to teach them everytime they come to an encounter because they don't remember, or if they even know how to play their class very well. More people means more people having to know EXACTLY what to do, not have more room for casuals who aren't on often enough, and have crappy gear because they barely raid.

[KazzySoJaz]

<div><blockquote><hr>Pinski wrote:<blockquote><hr>KazzySoJazzy wrote:First, I believe I said end game raiding, that means most zones set to farm, Tarinax down etc... (imo)Second, I disagree, because it can be hard for some of the more casuals to get into a higher tiered raiding guilds here, as most only want 24 hardcore people, who never miss a raid, even some of the lower tiered hardcore guilds only have 30-40 in the guild just in case a few cannot make it one night, but the nights everyone logs in, they could go to a 40 main raid zone.I have met many players who refuse to join a raiding guild because they cannot just hit one zone a week or two a week or whatever their play times allow.  Fielding more people allows for more casual players to get in rotations, say you have 4 brigands who can only make it two times a week, while you have 4 others who can make the other nights in the week, it allows guilds to expand some and like I said allows casuals to hit the raid scene a little more, instead of only having 2 brigands in the guild who can make the raids every night of the week, while the other 6 become bored with the game because they cannot keep raid attendance up so they have to join some lower tiered guild who cannot beat vyemm.I also never said this was WoW, just comparing what I have experienced and what I know.<hr></blockquote>Why would hardcore raiders want casual raiders who aren't the same day-in day-out? I know if I was raiding content that was setup for 40-man, I'd want 45-48 people in a guild tops whever everybody is the same(basically) and everybody knows [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] they're doing. I wouldn't want casuals in my hardcore guild, because [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] gearing up people who are barely on. I want a guild that is designed around the content, not having more casual players who could suck because they don't play, not to mention have to teach them everytime they come to an encounter because they don't remember, or if they even know how to play their class very well. More people means more people having to know EXACTLY what to do, not have more room for casuals who aren't on often enough, and have crappy gear because they barely raid.<hr></blockquote>I didn't get my point across the best I could earlier, [Removed for Content], sorry was @ work getting up every few mins when I would have to put results in etc...  Let me clear some things up, I meant if you could do labs DT etc etc with 40 people, it would allow guilds now that arent as deep into progression as we are now, to see deeper progression than they can now, due to their sheer size.  I like this because with current drop rates (cept in DT) it would take a guild this size forever to gear people up, so on the 24 main raids etc, they still would be hurting, allowing the more "Uber" people to do the encounters because their people would be geared, have more experience from raiding nightly instead of here and there etc...  In short I am trying to say give the little man a chance to see what we all do every night and love in the higher tiered 5+ night a week raiding guilds.I wouldn't know exactly what to allow larger raids on, I geuss that is up to the devs or what the community woudl allow, not like they would put my ideas into play anyways.  With tier 7.5 coming up, maybe they could allow larger raids for stuff that is trivial to most guilds, such as labs, lyceum, HoS.  Keep things that give access quests like AoA x2 and x4 @ 24 people.I will stop now back to my coronas and leveling my troub.  Just throwing out ideas I know you won't like any of em pinski but hope I conveyed my thoughts a little better.  I don't want to dilute our kind, cause I know I yell at newbs, so I couldn't deal with new people nightly, but for some guilds out there, they just want fun, could be a way to give it to them.</div>

[matinisback]

vox was actually pretty easy tbh

[Gaige]

Letting more people into a raid makes it more hardcore, not more casual.  If you think otherwise, well... lol.

[KazzySoJaz]

<div><blockquote><hr>Gaige wrote:<div></div>Letting more people into a raid makes it more hardcore, not more casual.  If you think otherwise, well... lol.<hr></blockquote>How does letting 40 people raid Vyemm = hardcore? .........................................*blinks*. ...................</div>

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> KazzySoJazzy wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR>How does letting 40 people raid Vyemm = hardcore? .........................................*blinks*. ................... <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>If they let 40 people raid they'd have to design the encounter for 40 people, and then it would become more difficult.  Also finding 39 people who want to raid is a lot harder than finding 23.</P> <P>If you're saying let 40 people do raids designed for 24 people, I don't see the point.  How does that appeal to more casual raiders than a x2 zone like roost and crab?<BR></P>

[snowbrdr093]

<div><blockquote><hr>KazzySoJazzy wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>Gaige wrote:<div></div>Letting more people into a raid makes it more hardcore, not more casual.  If you think otherwise, well... lol.<hr></blockquote>How does letting 40 people raid Vyemm = hardcore? .........................................*blinks*. ...................</div><hr></blockquote>Your sheer stupidity amazes me, why would they EVER let 40 people do a raid deisgned for 24. The idea of a 40 man raid would be on the basis that encounters were designed for 40 people, not somehow make it so people with downs could go back and kill what was designed for 24 people with 40.</div>

[KazzySoJaz]

<div><blockquote><hr>snowbrdr093 wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>KazzySoJazzy wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>Gaige wrote:<div></div>Letting more people into a raid makes it more hardcore, not more casual.  If you think otherwise, well... lol.<hr></blockquote>How does letting 40 people raid Vyemm = hardcore? .........................................*blinks*. ...................</div><hr></blockquote>Your sheer stupidity amazes me, why would they EVER let 40 people do a raid deisgned for 24. The idea of a 40 man raid would be on the basis that encounters were designed for 40 people, not somehow make it so people with downs could go back and kill what was designed for 24 people with 40.</div><hr></blockquote>Recycling content, for one, and I am willing to bet some people with 40 wouldn't be able to down it.  When tier 7.5 comes out you think people will continue to raid crappy boring KoS content?  Next, If you read threads completely before replying, you will notice that this is about casual players.  They need something to do, and imo this is where (again makign a WoW reference) WoW beats eq2.  Also people can beat the encounter with prolly 16-18 players if they wanted to, but does that mean he needs to be changed to a x3 mob?</div>

[SpritRaja]

<P>if raids will be made to be able to use 24+ people then even the hardcore guilds will be doing so. Then those hard core guilds will find those raids extremely easy and therefore complain to get them increased in difficulty. </P> <P>End result : raids designed to be beatable only by 40 men armies.</P> <P>Dont think that hardcore guilds won't use more than 24 players. As I have seen posted in the discussions of SKs MT tanking. Hardcore guilds continuously ask why would those guilds using an SK MT want to short change themselves over using a Guardian MT.</P>

[Dignast]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> KazzySoJazzy wrote:<BR> <DIV><BR>Recycling content, for one, and I am willing to bet some people with 40 wouldn't be able to down it.  When tier 7.5 comes out you think people will continue to raid crappy boring KoS content?  <BR><BR>Next, If you read threads completely before replying, you will notice that this is about casual players.  They need something to do, and imo this is where (again makign a WoW reference) WoW beats eq2.  Also people can beat the encounter with prolly 16-18 players if they wanted to, but does that mean he needs to be changed to a x3 mob?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Wow, first let me just say, tier 7.5?  What if the expansion after EoF has no level increase, then is our current tier downgraded to tier 7.33?  Its all jus t7.  If we really need a term, t7b would be better to guard ourselves incase of what might happen in the future.</P> <P>Then, I dont think you've raided much in WoW.  Once your level capped in WoW its raid or quit basically.  Raids are mostly catered to the more hardcore players, who can farm the zones for weeks on end just to get a shot at the next raid in the progression.  In the terms your talking, WoW loses to eq2.  Furthermore, WoW is downsizing their raid forces in their upcoming expansion more towards eq2's method.<BR></P>

[Bravesinger]

<blockquote><hr>Gaige wrote:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE><HR>KazzySoJazzy wrote:<BR><DIV><BR>How does letting 40 people raid Vyemm = hardcore? .........................................*blinks*. ...................<HR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><P>If they let 40 people raid they'd have to design the encounter for 40 people, and then it would become more difficult.  Also finding 39 people who want to raid is a lot harder than finding 23.</P><P>If you're saying let 40 people do raids designed for 24 people, I don't see the point.  How does that appeal to more casual raiders than a x2 zone like roost and crab?<BR></P><hr></blockquote>Have you ever raided in EQ1? Back then, a full raid consisted of 72 players. Before I quit EQ1 I managed to get to Plane of Time. We never used 72 people on our raids. 40-50 players were the normal number, and tbh I think that system worked perfectly. None of the hardcore guilds on my server ever used 72 players. Some had 40 and some had 60. But the pickup raids managed to get 72 people and managed to beat some of the easier mobs to open up for the next tier. The hardcore guilds could equip their playerbase faster than the casual guilds, and could kill the same encounters with fewer, but more well-equipped, players. I wouldn't mind seeing raids for 36 or 42 people in EQ2. What I fear is that the coding of EQ2 is not suited for it. I think there would be a constant stream of LDs and the usual 1-4 seconds of lag we see today when a contested pops and 3 guilds rush to get there first.

[electricninjasex]

<div><blockquote><hr>Bravesinger wrote:Have you ever raided in EQ1? Back then, a full raid consisted of 72 players. Before I quit EQ1 I managed to get to Plane of Time. We never used 72 people on our raids. 40-50 players were the normal number, and tbh I think that system worked perfectly. None of the hardcore guilds on my server ever used 72 players. Some had 40 and some had 60. But the pickup raids managed to get 72 people and managed to beat some of the easier mobs to open up for the next tier. The hardcore guilds could equip their playerbase faster than the casual guilds, and could kill the same encounters with fewer, but more well-equipped, players. I wouldn't mind seeing raids for 36 or 42 people in EQ2. What I fear is that the coding of EQ2 is not suited for it. I think there would be a constant stream of LDs and the usual 1-4 seconds of lag we see today when a contested pops and 3 guilds rush to get there first.<hr></blockquote>Applying diminishing returns to raid participation sounds, at the minimum, plausible enough to merit pondering.  You can add more people to the raid force, but the downgrade with extra people is that it is harder to gear them to manage the mob's attacks.  More deaths means more rezzes, less power and health pool, and less focus.  Zerging isn't a guaranteed win, and what came to mind was Russia during WW1... undersupply meant that sometimes they'd have one rifle per 2 or more soldiers... definitely not an effective way of fighting, and it helped force them to make peace with Germany.The flipside of course is the lack of progression.  A support class can be made sufficient for endgame raiding with non-raid gear even, and master spells seem as common as adept 1's.</div>

[KazzySoJaz]

<div><blockquote><hr>Dignastik wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> KazzySoJazzy wrote: <div>Recycling content, for one, and I am willing to bet some people with 40 wouldn't be able to down it.  When tier 7.5 comes out you think people will continue to raid crappy boring KoS content?  Next, If you read threads completely before replying, you will notice that this is about casual players.  They need something to do, and imo this is where (again makign a WoW reference) WoW beats eq2.  Also people can beat the encounter with prolly 16-18 players if they wanted to, but does that mean he needs to be changed to a x3 mob?</div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Wow, first let me just say, tier 7.5?  What if the expansion after EoF has no level increase, then is our current tier downgraded to tier 7.33?  Its all jus t7.  If we really need a term, t7b would be better to guard ourselves incase of what might happen in the future.</p> <p>Then, I dont think you've raided much in WoW.  Once your level capped in WoW its raid or quit basically.  Raids are mostly catered to the more hardcore players, who can farm the zones for weeks on end just to get a shot at the next raid in the progression.  In the terms your talking, WoW loses to eq2.  Furthermore, WoW is downsizing their raid forces in their upcoming expansion more towards eq2's method.</p><hr></blockquote>They will have to up the level cap in the next expansion, you can quote me...  Tier 7.5 is a perfect name for it IMO, after that we can give it letters.  Back on topic though.In WoW there is a lot of pickup raiding that the casuals do, I see it all the time when my wife is playing (she has a 60 priest on stormscale).  Also, once your level is capped in eq2, it is the exact same thing, raid or quit.  Claymore requires raiding, and even then isn't worth finishing the quest IMO.  While WoW might be downsizing, they are smart in doing this, because I am sure that they will also still have the 40 man raids, allowing them to cater to both of the main play styles.  WoW's problem currently, IMO is it doesn't cater well to the hardcore players, which is why I am here instead of there. --------Moving on...  I am glad that some people from EQ1 are speaking up, the larger raids, as they did successfully in EQLive, would allow for the casual players to see what raiding is like.  This will allow Sony, again IMO, to have a chance to hook them on what they do best, which is Hardcore content...</div>

[Atmosphear1993]

I don't know why everyone is arguing over 40 man raids.  That will never, ever happen.  You should be either arguing over 42 man raids or 36 man raids.

[Pins]

<blockquote><hr>Atmosphear1993 wrote:I don't know why everyone is arguing over 40 man raids.  That will never, ever happen.  You should be either arguing over 42 man raids or 36 man raids.<hr></blockquote>It's more about the fact that "more" people is not more casual.

[Gaige]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> KazzySoJazzy wrote:<BR> <DIV>While WoW might be downsizing, they are smart in doing this, because I am sure that they will also still have the 40 man raids, allowing them to cater to both of the main play styles.  WoW's problem currently, IMO is it doesn't cater well to the hardcore players, which is why I am here instead of there. <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>You'd be wrong, TBC is 25 man period.  There are no more 40 man epic raids in WoW.  That has been posted all over the official WoW forums.</P> <P>As for WoW not catering well to hardcore players... HAHAHA.  Have you heard of Naxxramas?  Its been called "raider heaven" by many WoW guilds.  Its hard, it has real linear progression and it took over 2 months to clear I believe.</P> <P>While both WoW and EQ2 endgame has their own problems, I can't believe you'd say WoW doesn't cater well to hardcore players, at 60 its totally about hardcore players.<BR></P>

[Dignast]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> KazzySoJazzy wrote:<BR> <DIV>They will have to up the level cap in the next expansion, you can quote me...  Tier 7.5 is a perfect name for it IMO, after that we can give it letters.  Back on topic though.<BR> <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Short sightedness is not an excuse for ignorance.

[KazzySoJaz]

<div><blockquote><hr>Gaige wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> KazzySoJazzy wrote: <div>While WoW might be downsizing, they are smart in doing this, because I am sure that they will also still have the 40 man raids, allowing them to cater to both of the main play styles.  WoW's problem currently, IMO is it doesn't cater well to the hardcore players, which is why I am here instead of there. <hr> </div></blockquote> <p>You'd be wrong, TBC is 25 man period.  There are no more 40 man epic raids in WoW.  That has been posted all over the official WoW forums.</p> <p>As for WoW not catering well to hardcore players... HAHAHA.  Have you heard of Naxxramas?  Its been called "raider heaven" by many WoW guilds.  Its hard, it has real linear progression and it took over 2 months to clear I believe.</p> <p>While both WoW and EQ2 endgame has their own problems, I can't believe you'd say WoW doesn't cater well to hardcore players, at 60 its totally about hardcore players.</p><hr></blockquote>They are getting rid of the 40 man raids that already exist?  Geuss I will have to keep up more on the expansions [Removed for Content]... </div>

[Pins]

<blockquote><hr>KazzySoJazzy wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>Gaige wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> KazzySoJazzy wrote: <div>While WoW might be downsizing, they are smart in doing this, because I am sure that they will also still have the 40 man raids, allowing them to cater to both of the main play styles.  WoW's problem currently, IMO is it doesn't cater well to the hardcore players, which is why I am here instead of there. <hr> </div></blockquote> <p>You'd be wrong, TBC is 25 man period.  There are no more 40 man epic raids in WoW.  That has been posted all over the official WoW forums.</p> <p>As for WoW not catering well to hardcore players... HAHAHA.  Have you heard of Naxxramas?  Its been called "raider heaven" by many WoW guilds.  Its hard, it has real linear progression and it took over 2 months to clear I believe.</p> <p>While both WoW and EQ2 endgame has their own problems, I can't believe you'd say WoW doesn't cater well to hardcore players, at 60 its totally about hardcore players.</p><hr></blockquote>They are getting rid of the 40 man raids that already exist?  Geuss I will have to keep up more on the expansions [Removed for Content]... </div><hr></blockquote> What's the use of doing 40-man content that is a tier below that drops worse gear than current 10-man content?

[KazzySoJaz]

<div><blockquote><hr>Pinski wrote:<blockquote><hr>KazzySoJazzy wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>Gaige wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> KazzySoJazzy wrote: <div>While WoW might be downsizing, they are smart in doing this, because I am sure that they will also still have the 40 man raids, allowing them to cater to both of the main play styles.  WoW's problem currently, IMO is it doesn't cater well to the hardcore players, which is why I am here instead of there. <hr> </div></blockquote> <p>You'd be wrong, TBC is 25 man period.  There are no more 40 man epic raids in WoW.  That has been posted all over the official WoW forums.</p> <p>As for WoW not catering well to hardcore players... HAHAHA.  Have you heard of Naxxramas?  Its been called "raider heaven" by many WoW guilds.  Its hard, it has real linear progression and it took over 2 months to clear I believe.</p> <p>While both WoW and EQ2 endgame has their own problems, I can't believe you'd say WoW doesn't cater well to hardcore players, at 60 its totally about hardcore players.</p><hr></blockquote>They are getting rid of the 40 man raids that already exist?  Geuss I will have to keep up more on the expansions [Removed for Content]... </div><hr></blockquote> What's the use of doing 40-man content that is a tier below that drops worse gear than current 10-man content?<hr></blockquote>There is no use for us, but for a casual player, the one thing they desire when they play games...  For the fun of it...</div>

[Pins]

<blockquote><hr>KazzySoJazzy wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>Pinski wrote:<blockquote><hr>KazzySoJazzy wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>Gaige wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> KazzySoJazzy wrote: <div>While WoW might be downsizing, they are smart in doing this, because I am sure that they will also still have the 40 man raids, allowing them to cater to both of the main play styles.  WoW's problem currently, IMO is it doesn't cater well to the hardcore players, which is why I am here instead of there. <hr> </div></blockquote> <p>You'd be wrong, TBC is 25 man period.  There are no more 40 man epic raids in WoW.  That has been posted all over the official WoW forums.</p> <p>As for WoW not catering well to hardcore players... HAHAHA.  Have you heard of Naxxramas?  Its been called "raider heaven" by many WoW guilds.  Its hard, it has real linear progression and it took over 2 months to clear I believe.</p> <p>While both WoW and EQ2 endgame has their own problems, I can't believe you'd say WoW doesn't cater well to hardcore players, at 60 its totally about hardcore players.</p><hr></blockquote>They are getting rid of the 40 man raids that already exist?  Geuss I will have to keep up more on the expansions [Removed for Content]... </div><hr></blockquote> What's the use of doing 40-man content that is a tier below that drops worse gear than current 10-man content?<hr></blockquote>There is no use for us, but for a casual player, the one thing they desire when they play games...  For the fun of it...</div><hr></blockquote> No they want gear, they don't go back to old content afterwards. I mean, [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn], do you know any casual players that are going back to T5 or T6 raids? Oh, they aren't, so therefore you are completely wrong.

[vinterskugge]

<P>Back to the matron:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P></P> <HR> Moorgard wrote: <P>We did not put this encounter in the game to block progression. With the encounters we want to be the most challenging, we'd rather start out making it uber tough and reduce it if it proves to be too much. This is the case with the Matron, but we're making such changes slowly in order to keep from going too far and trivializing the thing.</P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I still believe you need to continue making changes to this mob.  It's been beaten, but it requires outside help to be able to do that which should not be required.  The mob should be further tweaked so 24 people alone can do it.</P>

[KazzySoJaz]

<div></div><div><blockquote><hr>Pinski wrote:<blockquote><hr>KazzySoJazzy wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>Pinski wrote:<blockquote><hr>KazzySoJazzy wrote:<div><blockquote><hr>Gaige wrote:<div></div> <blockquote> <hr> KazzySoJazzy wrote: <div>While WoW might be downsizing, they are smart in doing this, because I am sure that they will also still have the 40 man raids, allowing them to cater to both of the main play styles.  WoW's problem currently, IMO is it doesn't cater well to the hardcore players, which is why I am here instead of there. <hr> </div></blockquote> <p>You'd be wrong, TBC is 25 man period.  There are no more 40 man epic raids in WoW.  That has been posted all over the official WoW forums.</p> <p>As for WoW not catering well to hardcore players... HAHAHA.  Have you heard of Naxxramas?  Its been called "raider heaven" by many WoW guilds.  Its hard, it has real linear progression and it took over 2 months to clear I believe.</p> <p>While both WoW and EQ2 endgame has their own problems, I can't believe you'd say WoW doesn't cater well to hardcore players, at 60 its totally about hardcore players.</p><hr></blockquote>They are getting rid of the 40 man raids that already exist?  Geuss I will have to keep up more on the expansions [Removed for Content]... </div><hr></blockquote> What's the use of doing 40-man content that is a tier below that drops worse gear than current 10-man content?<hr></blockquote>There is no use for us, but for a casual player, the one thing they desire when they play games...  For the fun of it...</div><hr></blockquote> No they want gear, they don't go back to old content afterwards. I mean, [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn], do you know any casual players that are going back to T5 or T6 raids? Oh, they aren't, so therefore you are completely wrong.<hr></blockquote>Actually my old guild on Guk did just that, they went back to t6 not only to gear up the newbies for little or no dkp charge, but also to teach them the fundamentals of raiding.So anyways, back to the topic.--------------I still believe you need to continue making changes to this mob.  It's been beaten, but it requires outside help to be able to do that which should not be required.  The mob should be further tweaked so 24 people alone can do it.--------------I agree, but the only way to fix this is probably to instance the mob, which will have people crying for months.</div><p>Message Edited by KazzySoJazzy on <span class=date_text>09-17-2006</span> <span class=time_text>04:12 PM</span>

[SageGaspar]

<div><blockquote><hr>Pinski wrote:No they want gear, they don't go back to old content afterwards. I mean, [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn], do you know any casual players that are going back to T5 or T6 raids? Oh, they aren't, so therefore you are completely wrong.<hr></blockquote>Actually, lots of casual guilds doing that for raids. Raiding one tier down is fun for a lot of people, because it's not very intense, it's still a big group activity, and there's still a shot at getting okay loot, AA, status, etc. You could have be a complete n00b at raiding, but a T7 legendary tank at 70 is far more than enough to let you get your foot in the door in T6. Quest ones like Deception and Spirits of the Lost happen more frequently.I'd love to do all the T5 specialty raids that I missed the boat on sometime (acts of war, anvilpaw, bloodlines, a couple of the short-lockout instances), it's just tough getting people that aren't out of the level range so fast that you can mentor them and get things to con. If they'd put in some auto-mentor system or something like that, I'd be all over it. It's also why I sorta hope they don't kick up the level cap in the expansion after EoF, though I know they probably gotta to keep the cash money coming in.As for more than 24 people on a raid, it just doesn't work on a whole ton of levels. The lag would be beyond ridiculous, it'd completely throw off the balance on existing raids, etc. Someone before said that it would balance out because you have more people to distribute loot over -- not really, though. As far as being able to actually complete content, only a couple people really need good loot. The rest can deal with a mix of masters and adept 3, legendary and fabled.Plus I bet a lot of people who can bring 24 people to the table and still can't complete content will probably get whalloped even if they brought 30 or whatever. That's just 10 or so more people that can grab aggro, stand in an AE, break a mezz, get instakilled by an aggro wipe, screw up stun timers, etc, which is likely your problem if your 24 people can't do the job right now. I guess if you had an army of priests it might do something, but I'm still not sure, hehe.</div>

[Vorlak]

<DIV>Problem isnt the amount of people per raid.... its lack of scripting to envolve everybody on the raid.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Raiding in eq2 should be totally reviewed right now its all the same thing... pull a mob and kill it before it kills you. The only real variable in raids are memory wipes which in themself are the worst idea ever.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>They need to make raids scripted to have wars like in eq1 vellious where a set of giants would attack, or have something like that vulak ring in NToV.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why should a raid consist of 5 healers, 2 guardians, 1 crusader, 4 scouts and 6 mages. (yes 18, thats all you really need for majority of the raids in this game).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I would love to see where you need 4 balanced groups per raid to do something. that means 4 tanks, 4healers, 4utiltiy, 8 mages, 8scouts. This would make each raid basicly 4 groups joined up to defeat a foe.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The script should be something like what we see at lower levels but more epic... rather then just 1 x4 npc have a set of encounters charge to protect the named while the name casts and fights.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Here is my idea of an epic fight lets say they make it to where you fight Rallos Zek in EoF (just speculation)...</DIV> <DIV>Now rather then just clearing then killing him... put him in a room where he cannot be pulled out of and attach 4 encounters of 2^^^ x4 mobs to him. Now in order to kill Rallos zek you must defeat his armies, killing the groups will weaken barriers protecting idols that protect Rallos (must kill 4 waves of 2x^^^ mobs, to disable 1 barrer, then use specail wepons or trinkets to disable the idols) you do this while Rallos Zek slowly moves around the room enguaging people randomly he cares not of taunts while he is immune to attacks.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Once all 4 barriars are down 4 generals spawn to protect there leader, they will call groups of 8tripple down arrow encounters every 40seconds (fun for people who aoe) so the idea would be to kill the generals first even tho Rallos is now attackable his generals are mean and will sacrfise themselfs by thowing up intercepts and taunting people off rallos.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So that means a guild could either kill rallos first but the generals would be taking the damage until they died or you could kill the generals first stopping the adds and then focus on rallos.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Either way i feel its better then pulling rallos with 1 tank or 2 if sony does a memwipe.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Here is another thing I would like to see changed.... You shouldnt be able to kill a end boss every week (lore wise dosnt make sence), right before they die they should AOE the entire raid and banish them to a chamber where there is a chest that has the loot in it... (so say you killed rallos before the 3 generals died, you would get rallos and 1 genrals worth of loot.)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also i think being granted access to the chamber of a raid boss should require a Repeatable Quest... that requires you to buy or make items from crafters, not all but some.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><p>Message Edited by Vorlak on <span class=date_text>09-18-2006</span> <span class=time_text>12:11 PM</span>

[Scort]

24 man raids already bring 90% of the players system to sluggishness without having to be on extreme performance with the raid a few mobs. Also, with 2 guilds at mobs, you start getting a crapload of server lag that hits for like 15 seconds or more.You honestly think it will be feasible to do more than 24 man raids with EQ2's engine and network code? I don't think so.<p>Message Edited by Scortch on <span class=date_text>09-18-2006</span> <span class=time_text>07:20 PM</span>

[KazzySoJaz]

<div><blockquote><hr>Scortch wrote:24 man raids already bring 90% of the players system to sluggishness without having to be on extreme performance with the raid a few mobs. Also, with 2 guilds at mobs, you start getting a crapload of server lag that hits for like 15 seconds or more.You honestly think it will be feasible to do more than 24 man raids with EQ2's engine and network code? I don't think so.<p>Message Edited by Scortch on <span class="date_text">09-18-2006</span> <span class="time_text">07:20 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote>The only time I have ever noticed 15+ second lag is when there are 3 or more guilds in a zone.  Did princes one night, 91+ people in the zone, and we only had lag when the last prince was in low yellow range, then it went to almost 1-2 minute lag (geussing it has something to do with the encounter script)</div>

[Shakir10]

I doubt it will happen, but I would love to see a mob that is listed as X5 or X6

[TanRaistlyn]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Vorlak wrote:<BR> <DIV>Problem isnt the amount of people per raid.... its lack of scripting to envolve everybody on the raid.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Raiding in eq2 should be totally reviewed right now its all the same thing... pull a mob and kill it before it kills you. The only real variable in raids are memory wipes which in themself are the worst idea ever.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>They need to make raids scripted to have wars like in eq1 vellious where a set of giants would attack, or have something like that vulak ring in NToV.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>Why should a raid consist of 5 healers, 2 guardians, 1 crusader, 4 scouts and 6 mages. (yes 18, thats all you really need for majority of the raids in this game).</STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV> <DIV><STRONG>I would love to see where you need 4 balanced groups per raid to do something. that means 4 tanks, 4healers, 4utiltiy, 8 mages, 8scouts. This would make each raid basicly 4 groups joined up to defeat a foe.</STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The script should be something like what we see at lower levels but more epic... rather then just 1 x4 npc have a set of encounters charge to protect the named while the name casts and fights.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Here is my idea of an epic fight lets say they make it to where you fight Rallos Zek in EoF (just speculation)...</DIV> <DIV>Now rather then just clearing then killing him... put him in a room where he cannot be pulled out of and attach 4 encounters of 2^^^ x4 mobs to him. Now in order to kill Rallos zek you must defeat his armies, killing the groups will weaken barriers protecting idols that protect Rallos (must kill 4 waves of 2x^^^ mobs, to disable 1 barrer, then use specail wepons or trinkets to disable the idols) you do this while Rallos Zek slowly moves around the room enguaging people randomly he cares not of taunts while he is immune to attacks.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Once all 4 barriars are down 4 generals spawn to protect there leader, they will call groups of 8tripple down arrow encounters every 40seconds (fun for people who aoe) so the idea would be to kill the generals first even tho Rallos is now attackable his generals are mean and will sacrfise themselfs by thowing up intercepts and taunting people off rallos.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So that means a guild could either kill rallos first but the generals would be taking the damage until they died or you could kill the generals first stopping the adds and then focus on rallos.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Either way i feel its better then pulling rallos with 1 tank or 2 if sony does a memwipe.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Here is another thing I would like to see changed.... You shouldnt be able to kill a end boss every week (lore wise dosnt make sence), right before they die they should AOE the entire raid and banish them to a chamber where there is a chest that has the loot in it... (so say you killed rallos before the 3 generals died, you would get rallos and 1 genrals worth of loot.)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also i think being granted access to the chamber of a raid boss should require a Repeatable Quest... that requires you to buy or make items from crafters, not all but some.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <P>Message Edited by Vorlak on <SPAN class=date_text>09-18-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>12:11 PM</SPAN><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Have you ever done Princes? Or Cruor? Or Cheldrak?  Cuz you dont seem to know what your saying.

[Aandien]

<P>Cheldrak is the only raid that you really need a "mostly" balanced force for.</P> <P>Princes just requires 3 tanks, 1 of each, every other spot in the raid is normal.  If you have extremelly well geared tanks, you can probably get away with just 2 tanks.</P> <P>Cruor -- you don't even need a tank for this.  Any raid setup can kill cruor.</P> <P> </P>

[TanRaistlyn]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> AncientElster wrote:<BR> <P>Cheldrak is the only raid that you really need a "mostly" balanced force for.</P> <P>Princes just requires 3 tanks, 1 of each, every other spot in the raid is normal.  If you have extremelly well geared tanks, you can probably get away with just 2 tanks.</P> <P>Cruor -- you don't even need a tank for this.  Any raid setup can kill cruor.</P> <P> </P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You comment doesnt even make sense, the poster I was replying too said his idea of a ideal raid force was 5healers 2guardians 1crusader 4mages and 6scouts he then said thats what all EQ2 raids consisted of needing - I was just giving examples on how thats not possible.  If your raid force can beat Princes with 5healers 2Guardians and a Crusader and 10random DPSers Ill give you my account.  Great post like always. <P>Message Edited by TanRaistlyn on <SPAN class=date_text>09-19-2006</SPAN> <SPAN class=time_text>01:37 PM</SPAN></P><p>Message Edited by TanRaistlyn on <span class=date_text>09-19-2006</span> <span class=time_text>01:38 PM</span>